get_workbook_metadata

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces this while adding substantial behavioral detail: it computes TRUE used range rather than stored dimensions, reports a round-trip hazard summary for openpyxl edits, and works while the file is open in Excel. No contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a dense but well-organized list of returned metadata, and ends with concise usage context. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all major return categories and operational caveats (read-only, works while open, hazard summary). An agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one required 'path' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It indirectly implies the parameter is the workbook path by describing the operation, and adds the important note that it works on files open in Excel. However, it never explicitly defines the path format or expected input, offering only partial compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a workbook's structure without opening it for edit' and enumerates the exact metadata returned (sheets, visibility, used range, dimensions, merged count, defined names, tables, active sheet, hazard summary). This clearly distinguishes it from cell-level tools like read_range or get_cells.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description positions the tool as 'The orient-before-editing call' and notes it works read-only while the file is open in Excel, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.